Senior Gameplay Designer on Battlefield 3, Alan Kertz aka Demize99 on Twitter, answered a common question console players have regarding player count.
24 players will work on consoles without a doubt, and the graphics and gameplay will still be amazing.
It's completely understandable. Most games fail to even have 8 v 8 nowadays. With the added destruction and expanse of the landscapes in the series, its a wonder that DICE manages to keep 12 v 12 on consoles. Edit: @ExPresident: Mostly Third person shooters and a select few FPS games. It's the generation of Co-op.
Which games on consoles are failing to do 8 v 8 nowadays?
@ExPresident, wasn't Crysis 2 only 6 v 6?
I don't care it's not important to me. COD maxes out at 18. Yes BF3 will have larger maps but DICE will work it's magic and make it all groove together nicely.
go to http://www.ibuypower.com/ and get yourself a decent pc there having a great 4th of july sale
. I mean after all they have this next gen engine in the current gen, Frostbite 2, but it's not doing anything new from what I can tell. Where's all the new features??? It's all excuses, ALL the time now. Sure, go buy a $1200 pc and you " might " get a great performance from the PC...no way to tell yet as the game hasn't released and there is no telling what kind of rig they are running these trailers on. All I hear is trust me, it'll be amazing...O_o...After all their talk about " lazy devs " they don't seem to be to active...lol...now it's all games are 720p and 30 fps just like them.
@Inside_out You fail on many levels :/ A next gen engine won't magically work better than a current gen engine. Frostbite 2 won't magically double the fps and up the graphics on consoles, people complain about 24 players and 30fps but they were never complaining when Bad Company 1 & 2 came out. It was the opposite actually. The hardware is the same, limited, hardware that we had years ago... A $700 PC could max out BF3 because we know what card they were using for the trailers (GTX 580) which were representing the alpha build of the game, aka the unoptimized one. When it arrives, further optimized, I bet you'll be able to run it on high on a GTX 460... They never claimed to create 1080p 60fps games and so they can't be blamed when it doesn't turn out that way. IMO the PS3 footage from the E3 gameplay looked pretty awesome, better than BC2, an achievement on consoles.
@Inside_out Are you really that stupid? If it really takes 1,200 dollar rig to max BF3, which it doesn't, you really think a 600 dollar console will come even close. A 600 dollar up to date pc will max BF3. That's 600 dollars today in pc parts not 600 dollars in 6 year old console hardware. The fact that console is locked to direct x9 means there are lots graphics effects that the console is locked out of from the start. So your just being silly even saying that.
yeah my first comment! @ MiLKJDO You do understand the name of the game is BATTLEFIELD... just stating that 12 v 12 isn't much of a "battlefield". I would gear my gameplay towards the title of my game, rather than wow people with pretty graphics. just sayin
most people are paying for the multiplayer experience when they pick up a battlefield game, i will still be getting battlefield 3 for PS3 but its more like Badcompany 3 while pc owners get Battle field 3, theres a solution for everything and they should figure it out
i believe 32 players will work on PS3 but they don`t want to upset some fanboys
Lol. Disappoint fanboys? Trust me, if DICE had a way of putting 32 players on PS3 I'm sure they would, the same goes for other consoles. With the level of destruction and scale present in Battlefield, especially with this being the third in the main series, it's not possible on consoles as a whole. It would become too unstable.
@BaN590DeR Quite the crap...Its just common sense and logic..Smaller maps on consoles means smaller players on consoles.
Yeah thats what KZ2 had and it worked fine. I am still a little bummed they don't have 64 players on PS3 I mean thats only 1/4 of what Mag had and that played good too. I think they just want want to make all console versions of BF3 the same and equal, which I respect and can understand their reasons for. BF3 for consoles is still going to be a great experience none the less.
Why do you think Guerrilla downgraded the player count from 32 - 24 in Killzone 3? I've been in my fair share of 32p servers in KZ2, and they were nothing short of a clusterf*ck! No balance, just mindless spawn camping w/rocket and grenade spam.
Whyt does everyone mention MAG on these types of articles? 1. MAG had horrible graphics 2. MAG didn't have destructible environments 3. MAG was specifically designed for the PS3 4. You could only see 64 players at most while playing Quit mentioning MAG people...
@MiLKJDO I dont know why they lowered the player count by 8, I wasn't at that meeting. "No balance, just mindless spawn camping w/rocket and grenade spam" name 3 fps's that don't run into that. @Shackdaddy836 1)You can't deny Mag's existance thats why people bring it up. 2)I bet if Mag were toned back to 64 players instead of 256 there would have been a large graphical difference. 3) Zipper games arn't known for amazing graphics but quality gameplay 4) And if you looking for good graphics with a large player count might I suggest Resistance 2, that game had great graphics for its time (2008) and easily managed 60 players. Just imagine what R2 could have been if it were a 2011 game.
You believe this because your using inferior games that are not even close to the technical level of BF3. If both the 360 and PS3 had 32 players some how, the PS3 version would have significant amounts of missing textures and objects and other effects the 360 version had. The frame rate would be the worst on PS3. PS3 would be dealing with physics better with the destruction thanks to its CPU and the 360 GPU and RAM- memory architecture would maintain better visuals and multi task everything on screen running at once better giving a overall smoother gameplay with sharper higher resolution environments
You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trolling for 360.
could have 256 players on ps3... =/
No, we can't. It would run terrible, even on PC. and if it was able to run, it would be way too many people on a game like this(do not compare this to MAG please and say it could have that many people). It just wouldn't work correctly, there was an interview stating that it wouldn't be that good either.. "Patrick: -A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we’ve tried it. We play tested with 128. You’ve got to make a game that’s fun to play. And, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it’s between 32 and 40 players. And we’ve done substantial research into this and tested 128 and that it’s not fun. Maybe we haven't done our design work good enough, but we just feel like there's no point in going higher than 64." - http://www.battlefield3game...
24 players is very good no need more... 64 is so stupid .. believe me. (played it on BF2, on my PC and its such a mess)
I don't remember how BF2 was with 64,..Might test it out tonight, if I find the cd,.. but MAG works pretty well with 256 (128 is better though, 256 is really a clusterfuck sometimes ),.. I guess it comes down to map size and mostly map design,.. Because in MAG they kinda spread the people in a way,.. it is kinda strange how they actually designed it, so that it actually works pretty well most of the time,..
Well I would have liked it if it was 16 vs 16, but 12 vs 12 works just fine on BF:BC2 and I play that all the time (actually just got a text from my mate saying to get on there and kick some ass in 10 mins coincidentally). And although the bigger maps would have been cool with a larger player count, I am glad the maps will be smaller than the PC version or else it would just have felt empty.... the maps will be at least as big as the BF:BC2 ones, and those maps are very big compared to games like COD, so although the console versions will not be as big as the PC version... they will still be the best FPS on any console, and will be a big step up from BF:BC2.... so really.... who gives a shit? The only people complaining about the; player count/map size/graphics are people who don't realise all those things will be just fine for the game!
I'm good with 24 players on consoles... because i have a PC *trollface*
24 players is fine with me. I'm thinking about getting new upgrades for my PC just for BF3. Also, if there are less players on consoles all they have to do is make the spawns closer to the fight. You won't even notice less people.
I never saw anybody complaining about player size when it came to other console battlefield games, and all of those games were great games in my opinion. They were balanced, fun, and not PACKED
24 players is like half the battlefield experience. I guess frame rate issues can become a problem but surely the real culprit is the piss poor p2p multiplayer system? Simply put, the majority of people these days just don't have connections good enough to host such a large number of players.
The game will he using dedicated servers for all platforms. And the reason why the game will only support 24 playes is to minimize the action on screen. Less players = less explosions and destruction = lesser frame drops.
Plainly put Dice doesn't want to take the time to optimize the console versions. With games like Resistance, Killzone and MAG, it has already been proving that PS3 at least can handle higher player counts it has yet to be seen on the 360. perhaps its a case of not wanting to upset 360 fanboys or simply Dice not wanting to spend the time or the money, but still wanting to charge full price for half of the work.
Plainly put, they can't do the shit they want to do on 5-6 year old tech. Stop trying to butter it up to make the PS3 more powerful than it is.
Why do you feel as if the consoles are getting a gimped version of BF3? DICE is working to make all versions play as similarly as possible. Resistance, Killzone and Mag ARE NOT running on Frostbite 2. If they were, I guarantee you they would not support the number of players online they do now.
Those games maps arent that large and dont have realtime lighting, or destruction on BF3 lvl.
Bad company 2 is 24 players on console and 32 on pc, why didn't you cry back then? :3
Battlefield 2 is 64 players on pc and 24 on xbox 360 why didn't you cry back then? :3
your consoles are too weak do 64 players lol you see how the game even looks even the ps3 version as shitty as it looks loosk beter than killzone 3 at has all lighting effects and physics being calculated in real time as well as HDR and cleaner looking textures which all all things killzone 3 lacks :) if you want to experience the game at its ZENITH then build a pc. you can't expect 1st class quality from a bunch of consoles that where outdated by late 2006 with the launch of nvidias geforce 8 series and core 2 duo and quad processors :) you consolites should stop trying to compare your consoles to pc even bulletsorm pc or battlefield 1 pc(not even 2) looks better than ANYTHING on your consoles, must break your little hearts doesn't it.comparing pc to consoles is like comparing a LION to a PUSSY cat lol PC FTW!!
Yeah thats the funny thing consoles have Nivida and amd graphics cards in them. Do you really think nivida and AMD didnt vastly update their GPU tech since then??? You console fanboys are just stupid go ask the makers of the Gpu in the consoles. You really think a graphcis card from 6 years ago can stand up to the the GPu's of today?
if dice made bf3 made specifically for a console, im sure they would b able to bring 64 players with no loss to any other element of the game. im happy with 24, im not a fan of 64 players..i hated than on bf2... so many camping noobs. However bf2 is were i learned to c4 your humvee haha.. good times
pc! You really think if dice made it for console it would have dx11 lighting tech mssa. bigger maps & 64 @ 1080p, 60? You blow my mind! Naughty dog couldn't do it for ps3 & UC3 is optimized as hell for ps3!.. sooo. why do people make console hardware out to be more than it is? I will wait for the official word from sony that tells me consoles are as powerful as modern pc's almost a decade after the consoles first launched.
If MAG is sooo much better than battlefield 3 with its 256 player count then why don't you play that game and stop talking about battlefield 3?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.